I can respect both sides of this discussion. On the one hand I completely understand the need and the desire to have quality control for something like the ArtBase, or put another way, some mechanism to keep the whole system from being dragged down by the lowest common denominator. However, at the same time I really can't understand why individuals pursuing careers as professional artists should necessarily be an important factor when considering the quality of an individual work. It seems to me at that point it becomes very insular and potentially closed to new things.

I'm speaking as someone who, for various reasons, made a conscious decision while I was still in art school that I wasn't going to pursue the path of what I assume you mean by a professional artist, i.e. having a CV, getting my work in galleries and exhibitions, etc. I have confidence in my talent and I know I could have had some modicum of success had I taken that path, but for better or worse I simply had zero interest in it, and still don't. I know very well that this does cut me off from certain opportunities and also tends to make my more professional contemporaries automatically lump me in the category of amateur or hobbyist or whatever, but I've never really regretted my decision. A huge part of what attracted me to the web as an artist and to the net art scene was that I could do my own thing and have fun doing it, without having to "commodify" my work or live in a metropolitan area with a big gallery scene, or really have to deal with the art world in any way. I don't need any of it to validate myself as an artist, and if that means I won't be awarded any historical significance by the powers that be, then so be it.

All that being said, I do value community very much. I had taken a pretty long hiatus from Rhizome until a few months ago. Part of the reason I shelled out my $25 and became a member was because I liked what I saw on the new website and because the organization / community had moved in what I perceived to be a positive direction since I had last visited. I have since submitted to the ArtBase twice and in both cases I can only assume my work was rejected because I basically received no response one way or the other. My submissions just disappeared into the ether. This doesn't really bother me for the same reasons I stated above, but I did find it interesting. I can't help but wonder if the work would be given any more consideration if I wasn't an outsider, if I already had my foot in the door, so to speak. I feel like given the chance in a debate, I could make a pretty good case for the historical significance of both of the works I submitted meeting the stated criteria. I wonder how much of the lack of response is due to the fact that I didn't really include much explanation text to support my case in the first place. I've never been one to delve into theory or provide a lot of background explanation or historical context. Hell, my artists statement at my BFA show was simply: "Art is fun."

In the end I know I'm a small fish and I don't pretend to deserve much say in what the ArtBase should be. Like I said, I do understand the need for some quality control, but I also tend to think something is lost if it becomes just another extension of the elite art world, a bouncer guarding the gates of the museum.

Lee Wells wrote:> The interesting thing about both Rhizome and the other new media community> sites is that its already a filtered group. We thought we might run into> that problem with the PAM select calls for artists. We found out that> through word of mouth and pre-filtered lists like this one, the work we> received was exceptional.>> I don